Final answer:
The Senate should not vote on Ginsburg's successor until after an election year because of the 2016 precedent of deferring nomination during an election year, to respect potential changes in political preferences reflected by the election outcome, and to maintain the Senate's credibility and judiciary impartiality by avoiding double standards.
Step-by-step explanation:
Ron Welch and others argue that the Senate should not vote on Ginsburg's successor until after an election year for several reasons. First, there is a precedent set in 2016 when the Senate, led by Mitch McConnell, refused to hold hearings for President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, citing proximity to a presidential election as the rationale. Second, holding off on the nomination respects the principle that the upcoming election could reflect a potential shift in the public's political preference, which in turn should influence the ideological leaning of the Court. Finally, the quick move to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett just prior to the 2020 election, contrary to the precedent set in 2016, suggests a double standard that undermines the Senate's credibility and the judiciary’s perceived impartiality.